HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1984-03-21Mayor Mark N. Addie§o
Vice Mayor Richard A. Haffey
Council:
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: {Cassette No. 1)
ROLL CALL:
AGENDA REVIEW
1. Further discussion of the General
Plan Policies.
MINUTES
City Council
City Council Conference Room
March 21, 1984
333
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
4:50 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Teglia
and Addiego.
Haffey and Damonte.
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo stated that he had
nothing to add and that at 7:30 p.m., the
City Attorney would need a Closed Session
for litigation.
Mayor Addiego stated that the Council
would adjourn this meeting for dinner at
6:30 p.m., and have the Special Meeting
at 7:30 p.m.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that Council had sche-
duled this meeting to discuss the
remaining General Plan policies not
covered at prior meetings and to give
Staff direction in terms of what policies
it would like studied or modified before
final adoption of the General Plan. He
stated that at a prior meeting Council
had discussed Policies 1-49 and on March
3, 1984, had held a Public Hearing and
the public testimony portion had been
closed. He stated that the Council was
in receipt of letters from: Mr. Poletti
on school property adjacent to his pro-
perty on Alida Way; Garnet Advertising
about a proposal in the policies relating
to outdoor advertising signs; BCDC recom-
mending certain open space designation be
provided adjacent to the bay next to the
U. S. Steel property.
Mayor Addiego stated he would now open
discussion to Council on policies of
individual concern.
3/21/84
Page I
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Further discussion of the General
Plan Policies - Continued.
Councilman Damonte arrived at 5:02 p.m.
Councilwoman Teglia requested a draft of
the policies already discussed with
requests for modifications by the
Council.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela gave each Councilmember a
report of modified Policies 3, 9, 10, 14,
21, 23 (which was deleted), 27, 28, 29 and
38.
Councilman Damonte arrived at 5:02 p.m.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that Policy 9
was basically a restatement combined with
Policy 28 and 29 and questioned why it
had not been rewritten as one policy con-
solidating the three policies to see if
the Council agreed.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela suggested that the Council
look over Policy 28 and 29 to see whether
they should be retained or combine the
thrust into one policy.
Mayor Addiego stated that he did not see
how they could be combined because one
was dealing with the reuse of the pro-
perty and the other was dealing with the
reuse of the existing facility, and 28
was extra verbage.
Councilwoman Teglia thought there should
be two policies, one to deal with the
surplus land not developed and the other
to deal with the developed school proper-
ties that have become surplus. She
stated that Policies 28 and 29 should be
consolidated and retain Policy 9. She
spoke of the elimination of specific uses
in Policy 29.
Mayor Addiego stated that they had been
eliminated because the Council was more
interested in non-intensive and day
oriented uses which the ones eliminated
did not fall under.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that each
school owned site should be looked at in
terms of its neighborhood.
3/21/84
Page 2
^C ZO. 235
1. Further discussion of the General
Plan Policies - Continued.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that the School
District had wanted an open ended use
which the Council had not responded to,
in fact had rejected.
Discussion followed: that any use the
School District wanted for a site had to
be approved by the City; if the School
District applied for a use that was traf-
fic generating it would be denied by the
City; that the City encouraged day care
centers; that as long as a school con-
tinued it was governed by the State and
when that school became surplus property
it was governed by the City; protecting
the community against traffic generating
uses; canvassing the people in the neigh-
borhood of the vacant schools and get
their opinion of uses they would find
compatible; that the policy should
reflect that the use should be compatible
with the neighborhood.
Council agreed to the new language in
Policy 14.
Mayor Addiego stated that Policy 21 might
be the standard for flat land and
questioned a property that might be
tucked into a hillside, could they build
higher.
Discussion followed: that the Council
had not changed the wordage - that the
height of condominiums, townhouses and
rental units should not exceed two
stories in rental areas; that this change
was for low density; should read: the
height of new residential structures; the
various densities, and height
restrictions; where highrise buildings
should be erected; etc.
Discussion followed on Policy 23 being
deleted; offering a 20% density bonus on
affordable housing; and State law; etc.
Discussion followed on Policy 27: defi-
nitions of mobilehomes, manufactured
homes and factory built housing; where
manufactured houses could be installed;
3/21/84
Page 3
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 22G
1. Further discussion of the General
Plan Policies - Continued.
Vice Mayor Haffey arrived at 5:50 p.m.
(Cassette No. 2)
that the City could designate certain
areas that were specifically appropriate
for this type of use; that Councilwoman
Teglia had a problem with mobile homes or
manufactured homes on the Spruce Drive-in
site and wanted it eliminated; the City
Attorney's memo was read into the record
(and is attached and a permanent part of
the record).
Vice Mayor Haffey arrived at 5:50 p.m.
Discussion continued on Policy 27:
putting in architectural standards and
minimum sizes; how a manufactured home
erected in a neighborhood would afffect
land values; the importance of
designating areas for mobile homes; that
E1Camino should be a commercial zone to
generate sales tax; how McLellan Nursery
being a mobile park would impact the
neighborhood; to designate areas as mobile
parks that already have that use; flood
levels in the various areas; that Mission
Road was the only acceptable use as a
mobile home.
Consensus of Council - That Spruce Drive-
in Theatre, McLellan Nursery, Mission
Road area and E1Camino Real are elimi-
nated from Policy 27 and it should read:
along the east side of E1Camino Real
west of Colma Creek and north of the City
limits and south of Westborough new manu-
factured housing should be allowed.
Consensus of Council - To approve amended
policies 28, 29 and 38.
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that on
Policy 50 he agreed with the letter from
Mr. Tevini on the possibility of regu-
lating cardrooms through an ordinance and
prohibit any new cardrooms in the City.
Mayor Addiego, Vice Mayor Haffey and
Councilwoman Teglia stated that they
agreed with Policy 50 as written.
Councilman Damonte questioned the term
phase out of existence.
3/21/84
Page 4
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDU:bI I
D~le February 17, 1984 ~. I, ii 51~ %~:.' .
337
Director of Community Development
TO:
SUB~ECT:Mobilehomes and the General Plan
1;q{OIN/i: City Attorney
COPIES TO:
City Manager
City Council
After observing the discussion of February 15, 1984 regarding the treatment
of mobilehomes and mobilehome parks in the General Plan Land Use Element,
it appeared necessary to submit this memorandum explaining the current sta. te
law on the subject.
A mobilehome means a structure transportable in one or more sections, de-
signed and equipped to contain not more than two dwelling units to be Used
with or without a foundation system. Mobilehome does not includ~ a recre-
ational vehicle, commercial coach or factory bu'ilt housing as defined in
the Health and Safety Code. The term manufactured home means a mobilehome.
There is also a term called "factory-built housing" which means, among
other things, a dwelling unit manufactured in such a manner that all con-
cealed parts or processes of manufacture cannot be inspected before in-
stallation at the building, site (i.e. prefabricated structures) but does
not include a mobilehome.
Government Code Section 65852.3 states in relevant part:
"A city shall not prohibit the installation of mobilehomes
on a foundation system, pursuant to Section 18551 of the Health and
Safety Code, on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. However, a
city . may designate lots zoned for single-family dwellings for
mobilehomes as described in this section, which lots are determined
to be compatible for such mobilehome use. A city . . may subject
any such mobilehome and the lot on which it is placed to any or all
of the same development standards to which a conventional single-
family residential dwelling on the same lot.would be subject, in-
cluding but not limited to, building setback standards, side and
rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, access, and vehicle
parking and architectural, aestheti'c requirements, and minimum square
footage re. quirements. However, any architectural requirements imposed
on the mobilehome structure itself, exclusive of any requirement for
any and all additional enclosures, shall be limited to its roff over-
hang, roo'fing material, and siding material. In no case may a city
apply any development standards which will have the effect of totally
precluding mobilehome$ from being installed ~'s permanent residences."
Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the State of California has mandated
that mobilehomes must be treated much the same as conventional single family
3/21/84
Page 4a
As/ss 205
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
Further discussion of the General
Plan Policies - Continued.
City Attorney Rogers stated that it could
be done in a number of ways: 1) Leave
the card rooms as non-conforming uses and
allow attrition to phase them out of
existence; discontinued use for six
months.
Discussion followed: Council did not
want to see the City pressuring the card
rooms to close down; that the business
could not expand or move; if it burned
down it could not be rebuilt; it could
not be sold; card games legal in
California, etc.
Consensus of Council - To strike Policy
44.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that Policy 45
should address the proliferation of
storage and used car lots or used
car/truck sales should be discouraged
from already impacted areas such as along
E1 Camino Real.
M/S Haffey/Damonte - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m.
APPROVED:
~taya ,~
City of South San Francisco
Mark ~. Addie~)o, Mayor
City of South San Franciscd~
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose
of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape
and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and
available for inspection, review and copying
3/21/84
Page 5
Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Vice Mayor Richard A. Haffey
Counci 1:
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
Roberta Cerri Te§lia
MINUTES
City Council
City Council Conference Room
March 21, 1984
240
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the
State of California, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold
a Special Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission and the Parking Place Commission on
Wednesday, the 21st day of March, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room,
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California
Purpose of the meeting:
1. Discussion regarding Parking District Policies as they relate to the Downtown
Revitalization.
Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor
relations and litigation.
-- Dated: March 16, 1984
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Closed Session for the purpose of
the discussion of personnel matters,
labor relations and litigation.
ACTION TAKEN
SPECIAL MEETING
7:45 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Teglia, Haffey and
Addiego.
Nicolopulos and
Damonte.
Planning Commission present: Bertucelli,
Grimes, Hoyer,
Mantegani, Martin,
Terry and Chairman
Getz.
Planning Commission absent: None.
Parking Place Commission present: Ross,
Rosaia and Chairman
Sciandri.
Parking Place Commission absent: None.
Mayor Addiego stated that there would be
a brief Closed Session for the discussion
of litigation at the beginning of the
meeting.
3/21/84
Page i
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Councilmen Nicolopulos and Damonte
arrived.
RECALL TO ORDER:
Discussion regarding Parking District
policies as they relate to the
Downtown Revitalization.
Council adjourned to a Closed Session at
7:46 p.m., for the discussion of litiga-
tion.
Councilman Nicolopulos and Councilman
Damonte arrived at 7:50 p.m.
The meeting was recalled to order at 7:54
p.m., all Council present, no action was
taken.
Mayor Addiego stated that Councilwoman
Teglia had asked for this meeting because
she felt that the Boards were out of sync
with each other.
He stated that he wanted to tell the
Planning Commission that some displeasure
that they read about in the paper about
his viewpoints on how they conducted
their business was better placed in
displeasure with circumstance rather than
with individuals. He stated that he
recognized that each fell into things
that happen outside of one's control, so
he really was not pointing at any
individual.
Chairman Getz stated that the press
report cited concerns over a revocation
proceeding and his comments by the Chair
and other Commissioners which tended,
according to the City Attorney, to affect
the revocation proceeding for the Council
in a manner he felt was so effective that
it had to be remanded back to the
Commission. He stated that the
Commission had reviewed the transcript of
the proceedings and that they had
complied completely with the advice given
by the memorandum given by the City
Attorney - the open hearing, took sworn
testimony, closed the hearing, made a
recommendation of revocation unqualified.
He continued, then himself and members of
the Commission made comments, which he
could describe as innocuous, about urging
Mr. Valencia to do certain things in the
interim which were after the action was
taken and not part of the action. He
stated that he did not see in any way how
3/21/84
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Discussion - Continued.
that could affect the validity of the
hearing because it was closed. He stated
that the Assistant City Attorney had
been present and did not tell the
Commission it was doing anything wrong,
which she would have if she felt the
Commission was wrong. He continued, that
it came as a surprise to read the newspa-
per article comments and in reading the
transcript the comments to Mr. Valencia
suggested he clean up his act as there
was a six week interim.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that in the
transcript Council had received the
hearing was closed and the Commission
continued conversation and within the
transcript your conversation was
included.
Chairman Getz read his comments on Page
29 of the transcript.
City Attorney Rogers stated that the
action (vote) was taken after the com-
ments and that his point to the Council
was that it was unfortunate that several
comments were made to the effect that,
"We will take action tonight to recommend
revocation, but you really have six to
eight weeks now before the record is
before the Council to essentially get all
of these items completed and tell the
Council they are done." He stated that
that was not a clean record for him to
take to the Judge if he doesn't get it
done unless the Council is willing to let
him have his say in terms of presenting
evidence at the Council level. He con-
tinued, that Staff had tried not to
second guess the Planning Commission on
what happened subsequent to their hearing
to adhere to the policy which the Council
did tonight on Classic Van. He stated
that his point was that the Commission
could be sympathetic with the eight weeks
but it should not be put in a transcript
that he had to put in front of a Judge.
He stated that the Judge could say that
we didn't allow him to put additional
evidence on at our level and the person
3/21/84
Page 3
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 243
1. Discussion - Continued.
could make a legitimate argument before
the Judge. He stated that something had
to be done and that was why it was
remanded.
Chairman Getz apologized, if there was an
error, to the Council but he said you
could present a record to a Judge showing
that you have given a man every oppor-
tunity and rather than weaken the case it
would strengthen it. He continued, if he
came and complied with everything at a
Council level - why would you want to
revoke him, on the other hand if he did
not what Judge would say that he had been
given every single opportunity.
Mayor Addiego requested a clarification
from the City Attorney on making a deter-
mination based on the transcript.
City Attorney Rogers stated that a
hypothetical was given when discussing
this with Director of Community
Development Dell'Angela, "what is the
Council going to do if the guy actually
got everything all done and was totally
in compliance before the record gets
here." He stated that the action was up
to the Council and that when creating a
record there is always potential 1 itiga-
tion - potential, we have actual on this
one. He cited reasons for having a clean
record to present to a judge; procedural
faults, etc.
Councilwoman Teglia spoke of the invest-
ment by the City in the Downtown
Revitalization Plan and the thought that
through that investment the bottom line
was that the property owners would see
fit to begin investing in their own pro-
perty and the City would see an economic
resurgence or revitalization. She con-
tinued, that in the proposed general plan
there were long range plans for that
area. She continued, the Parking Place
Commission for a long time has been con-
cerned over the parking needs that they
were unable to meet in the downtown area.
She stated that there is interest
3/21/84
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion - Continued.
o44
expressed in developing used property on
Grand Avenue and the downtown area. She
stated that some of those proposals were
being brought before the Parking Place
Commission for their review to see how
much parking they can provide and whether
they were going to be impacting the
existing parking downtown. She stated
that from her perspective the Parking
Place Commission was determining that
there was a critical situation downtown
and that new development that cannot
accommodate its parking needs should not
be allowed. She stated that the effect
of that was that it was running in
contradiction with what the Council hoped
would happen downtown. She continued,
there were specific projects being pro-
posed that were being shut down and won-
dered if that was the direction in which
the City wanted to go.
Parking Place Commissioner Sciandri
stated that the Commission did not want
to see any project stopped, but they
didn't want to see a project proceed
where it would enhance a certain project
and affect the rest of the downtown area
and the whole parking district. He cited
the new projects that had come into the
downtown area: the Bocci Building, the
State Building, Peres Cafe, Silver Dollar
and the Croation Building that put a bur-
den on the parking situation. He stated
that the Bocci Building has two floors of
offices and that the project had never
been brought before the Parking
Commission for their approval - yet it
was approved and put into the downtown
area as were the other buildings. He
stated that in the two floors of offices
there were fifteen people working there
without parking provided, so that meant
that they take up fifteen parking spaces
that were meant for customers on Grand
Avenue and the District. He stated that
the Commission wanted to be able to
supply enough parking needs so that the
revitalization will not be affected. He
continued, if the Commission had allowed
the projects to come in it would eventually
3/21/84
Page 5
AGE"DA ACTZO" TAKE"
1. Discussion - Continued.
kill the downtown area. He stated that
the parking would be taken up during the
day by apartment dwellers and the office
people during the day which is when the
businesses are open. He stated that the
Commission did not want this to happen,
in that the downtown businesses were on
the upswing and wanted to continue in
that manner.
Vice Mayor Haffey questioned why the
Bocci project had not been brought before
this Commission.
City Planner Christians stated that most
big projects did go before the Parking
Place Commission such as the 24 units on
Baden Avenue which had conditions on the
Use Permit.
Planning Commissioner Bertucelli stated
that if a new project was going into the
Parking District the project did not have
to provide its own parking - the District
provided parking.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that once
while on the Planning Commission it had
written in a condition on the Use Permit
that that applicant had to go before the
Parking Place Commission for the parking
issue. She stated that as a Councilwoman
she had attended a Parking Place
Commission meeting and had questioned why
they did not review the parking in the
District for new projects coming in - she
had been told that the Commission knew
nothing about a review. She continued,
she and the Commission had had Mr.
Costanzo explain that the review of
parking for new projects was a condition
the Planning Commission had set down.
City Planner Christians stated that major
remodeling or large structural changes
would go before the Parking Place
Commission in addition to changes of use
or intensity.
Discussion followed on the change in use
of the secondhand store wherein the busi-
3/21/84
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Discussion - Continued.
ness license was acquired and a check
cashing use had been in operation for two
months before it was brought before the
Parking Commission; that the business had
operated on a temporary permit; that when
it was discovered to be a more intensive
use than the prior business it was sent
to the Parking Commission.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that if the Parking
Place Commission does not approve of a
use being in without on-site parking,
then eventually a variance would have to
be applied for from the Planning
Commission. He stated that after Council
clarified this issue it should ease the
frustration of the Commissions over
parking for new projects.
Councilwoman Teglia questioned what was
needed in order for some of the projects,
for example one restaurant with two
floors of housing to be accepted by the
Parking Place Commission.
Parking Place Commissioner Rosaia stated
that it would take more parking.
Councilwoman Teglia questioned what would
happen if they couldn't provide parking.
Discussion followed: that the applicant
and the Parking Place Commission would
have to compromise; in-lieu fees used by
other cities at $5,000 per space; which
would not buy a parking space or lot;
that the new Baden Avenue lot had cost
$300,000; employee parking and not
providing a parking turnover for
customers; permit parking spaces; etc.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that the
Council and Planning Commission were
looking at policies to renovate existing
hotels downtown for long term low cost
housing. She continued, there was also
the possibility of seeing new construc-
tion with the first floor being a retail
establishment and the next two floors
perhaps residential or offices.
3/21/84
Page 7
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN o
1. Discussion - Continued.
Chairman Sciandri stated that first the
parking problems - define the problems and
have a goal toward parking solutions. He
stated that the Parking Place Commission
with the Planning Commission were going
out to bid for a parking consultant to
look at the existing parking lots, their
locations and whether a parking structure
was needed. He stated that when that was
done the Commission would better know
what direction to pursue.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that she had
been hearing about a master parking plan
for three years without it coming to
fruition. She stated that these projects
had money for development of the downtown
which three years from now would not be
available.
Discussion followed: feeding meters on
Grand Avenue; chalked tires on the side
streets; that the Enforcement Officer
took care of the downtown, industrial
area and the flip flop parking; the
number of citations given by the
Enforcement Officer; that vacation and
sickness relief for the Officer came out
of the Police budget; was there a demand
for increased enforcement; having an
officer in the downtown area eight hours
a day; owners of businesses on Grand
Avenue parking in front of their busi-
nesses without being tagged; acting with
discretionary police powers, acting
within legal restraints in tagging cars;
using stickers for residential parking;
looking for an engineering remedy to the
parking; clear policies developed with
respect to parking; the problem on Linden
and 3rd Lane was because of a warehouse;
the conditions of storage for the ware-
house use should be investigated for
violations by the Planning Department;
etc.
Planning Commissioner Terry questioned
whether the downtown parking lots were
empty on Saturday and if so let the
people park there on Saturdays.
3/21/84
Page 8
AGENDA
1. Discussion - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
o48
Planning Commissioner Grimes questioned
why the east side of Grand Avenue has no
accessibility to the parking lots. He
continued, on the west side of the 300
block there was a breezeway and a walkway
on the 200 block. He stated that there
were four or five parking lots on
Miller, Grand and Baden Avenues that are
rarely used for parking. He stated that
there was a need for a multi storied
parking structure, such as Kaiser's, in
the downtown area.
Planning Commissioner Hoyer felt that the
parking consultant was important and the
results of his study would give the City
di recti on.
Director of Finance Lipton stated that a
preliminary proposal had been drafted
which was being routed to the major
departments for input and hoped it would
be read by early April to the Commission.
He continued, then the proposal would be
sent out; there were five consultants
that were interested; the study would take
five to six weeks and hopefully by June
30th would have the information from the
study for a course of action for 1984-85.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that in the
meantime what should be done to the down-
town area so it does not stagnate with
additional parking not coming for a long
time and the need for continued invest-
ment downtown.
Parking Place Commissioner Rosaia stated
that the Commission did not want to see
development stopped, but maybe
controlled. He questioned whether the
downtown was being geared for commercial
or residential use.
Councilwoman Teglia thought the direction
of the General Plan and the investment
in the downtown revitalization was really
the crux, and the Council direction was
to provide housing in the area.
Parking Place Commissioner Sciandri
3/21/84
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Discussion - Continued.
stated that Policy 2-6 new uses that are
more parking intensive than current uses
should not be permitted in the downtown
unless additional off-street parking is
provided on-site. He stated that Policy
D-6, major new uses in the area should be
required to provide adequate off-street
parking on-site.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that when the
Commission saw something that was being
gutted, remodeled or going up without the
possibility for parking was being
stopped. She stated that no one was
going to put lots of money into one
level, instead they would remodel and add
one or two stories for the greater return
on their investment.
Discussion followed on the parking
requirements put on the project at Spruce
and Grand Avenues where a parking lot was
put in a half block away; putting parking
stalls under buildings; the joint meeting
of the Parking Place Commission and the
Planning Commission; wherein it was
stated that the Parking Place Commission
was too lax in not requiring additional
parking; opening up the downtown and hope
the solutions to parking problems would
be found; employing the car sticker
system; making long term meters short
term meters; interim policies; etc.
Parking Place Chairman Sciandri stated
that a Resolution passed by his body left
no room for development in the downtown
area where anyone could supply enough
parking which was adopted prematurely.
He stated that the Resolution the
Director of Community Development pre-
sented tonight was a better one because
it gave the Commission leeway.
Mayor Addiego stated that the Commission
should take the Resolution and weigh it
carefully.
Discussion followed on how the Grand
Avenue meters have a maximum of one hour;
having employees park in the lots and the
3/21/84
Page 10
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 250
1. Discussion - Continued.
customers park on the street; putting a
sign in the lots "permits available."
A long discussion followed on using in-
lieu fees for a second enforcement
officer; none of the juristions that use
in-lieu fees felt that it was an effec-
tive tool; that Staff had problems with
the in-lieu fees; would a developer ever
directly receive some of the in-lieu fees
in time; that the in-lieu fees go into
the revolving fund for additional
parking; a multi parking facility;
trading the Miller and Maple lot for a
more convenient lot; north side of Baden
and the south si de of Miller being con-
sidered commercial rather than
resi denti al; putting commerci al/retail
downstairs and parking upstairs.
Parking Place Commission Chairman Rosaia
stated that there were a few projects
waiting for the Commission to act upon
and it would be a couple of months before
the Resolution was adopted and in-lieu
fees were set and adopted. He stated
that the Commission needed to meet with
the Planning Commission to discuss in-
lieu fees.
Mayor Addiego stated that the Commission
was bound to rectify the situation and
did not know whether they were bound to
do more.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela suggested that the Parking
Place Commission rescind their prior
resolution and adopt a new interim
policy, exclusive of the in-lieu fee, and
reconsidering the old applications under
the new policy.
Mayor Addiego stated that in regard to
the in-lieu fees the Commission should do
what it was comfortable in doing.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that she had
not been comfortable with the Parking
Place Commission denying an application
and then the applicant would apply for a
3/21/84
Page 11
AGENDA ACTI'ON TAKEN
1. Discussion - Continued.
e
Closed Session for the purpose
of the discussion of personnel
matters, labor relations and
1 i ti gati on.
RECALL TO ORDER:
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
City of South San Francisco
variance on parking.
Mayor Addiego complimented both
Commissions on their attendance tonight
on such short notice.
Council adjourned to Closed Session at
9:23 p.m., for the discussion of person-
nel matters, labor relations and
litigaton.
The meeting was recalled to order at 9:58
p.m., all Council present, no action
taken.
M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
APPROVED:
ddie~)o, Mayor
ty of South San Francisco
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose
of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape
and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and
available for inspection, review and copying
3/21/84
Page 12